A Licensure Showdown Is Happening in Massachusetts
A proposed interstate compact could make it easier for dentists and hygienists to work across state lines, but it’s sparking heated debate over patient safety and regulatory control. Supporters see it as a way to reduce red tape, while critics warn it could weaken clinical competency standards.
The Dentist and Dental Hygienist Compact, now adopted by a dozen states, aims to streamline licensure by allowing oral health professionals to practice in participating states without the cost and paperwork of multiple licenses. In Massachusetts, however, the proposal has ignited a sharp divide within the profession.
Proponents of the compact, including dental educators and professional associations, argue that it was designed to respect existing accredited education programs and accommodate various accrediting bodies. They see it as a tool to increase workforce mobility, reduce administrative burdens, and address provider shortages. According to advocates, every state that has joined the compact still requires both written and clinical skills assessments, maintaining baseline competency standards.
Opponents, including past members of the Massachusetts Board of Dental Examiners and other practicing professionals, contend the compact risks lowering patient safety standards. They argue that clinical hand skills, critical for surgical and technical procedures, cannot be adequately evaluated through written exams alone. Some say the compact opens the door for eliminating hands-on testing, potentially eroding the quality of care.
Regulatory oversight is another flashpoint. Critics warn that the compact creates a multistate commission with binding authority over licensees, potentially undermining state boards’ control. They point to lawsuits in other states, such as Virginia, where concerns over delegating state authority to an external body have already reached the courts.
With competing bills in Massachusetts, some requiring specific exams like ADEX and others leaving testing requirements broader, the debate reflects deeper tensions between mobility, market access, and safeguarding public trust. Whether Massachusetts joins the compact could have lasting implications not only for oral health professionals’ ability to work across borders, but also for how the profession balances regulatory consistency with the protection of clinical standards. Click here to read more.
